Perry, White on teaching evolution in schools

The San Angelo Times asked gubernatorial candidates Gov. Rick Perry and challenger Bill White about public education. When it came to evolution and creationism being taught in schools, here’s what the two had to say.

Perry:I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.

White:Educators and local school officials, not the governor, should determine science curriculum.

The Science v. Religion debate is alive in the state of Texas, where the elected State Board of Education decides school standards. The SBOE has gotten national attention for the way faith and ideology may be influencing the curricula. Currently, staff at the Texas Education Agency must remain “neutral” on the issues of creationism, intelligent design and evolution (or they could be fired).

In schools, students must learn “theories of evolution,” but evolution advocacy groups like the Texas Freedom Network say that natural selection and scientific concepts related to evolution aren’t taught as factual with the same authority as other subject.

Just under half of American adults say that “evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth,” according to a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the least-likely to believe in evolution. They often adopt the Bible’s creation story as scientific truth or believe in intelligent design, where a divine force orchestrates the development of living things.

I’m more than willing to let Perry out of his current job so that he can spend more time researching his personal theories about the origins of the universe. In the meantime, I’ll be okay with Bill White trying to turn Texas around from the cliff to which it is headed under Perry’s leadership.

A while back there was a movie called “Expelled” with Ben Stein that addressed the issue of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. The movie was well done and interesting for a documentary. Those interested might check it out.

I recommend the NOVA episode “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” for really good investigative reporting on this topic. It’s a factual account of the Dover Pennsylvania trial of 2004. It streams for free on the internet (google it).

Thank you, Governor Perry. You have yet again made Texas a national laughingstock. I actually have no problem with folks believing in intelligent design — this a free country and you are entitled to your beliefs. However, evolution is a scientific theory appropriate for teaching in the public schools, and intelligent design is a religious belief that is therefore not appropriate for teaching in the public schools. This really isn’t that hard, but I don’t expect too much intellectual reasoning from an A&M Yell Leader.

“I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect…” Really. I thought we weren’t teaching religion in school. So if we are required to teach intelligent design, does that also mean we need to be teaching Sharia and an alternate form of law and polygamy as an acceptable alternate living style? Guess that ‘genius’ Rick Perry didn’t think of that, did he?

Perry says intelligent design is a matter of faith and then says it should be presented in schools. Matters of faith have no business being taught in public schools. Whose faith are we going to choose? That of the majority? Evangelicals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would love the idea of creationism being taught in schools. But what if the slant on it was based on the Mormon views? Would they still want it taught? I don’t think so. Leave the science in the classroom and the faith lessons in Sunday school.

Oh boy! I can’t wait to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in school….or does he mean only HIS god? You see, every religion HAS ITS OWN IDEAS of the origin of the earth. It is impossible to teach them all. Science is for science class, Perry….

So what are they going to use the Flintstones as a teaching tool to show that dinosaurs and h. sapiens were contemporaries because the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

This state needs to wake up to the fact that indoctrinating children is not the same as educating them. No child of mine will ever go to public school in the state of Texas. No child deserves to be the idiot of America.

The admitted acceptance of the fanciful air-headed notion of “intelligent design” is so mindbogglingly stupid that it proves that Perry has no business being governor of any state … even a wild and wooly state like Texas. Where did that poor sad glassy-brained man go wrong? He must have been severely beaten about the head as a child.

A while back there was a movie called “Expelled” with Ben Stein that addressed the issue of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. The movie was well done and interesting for a documentary. Those interested might check it out.

Posted by: phil at September 13, 2010 03:43 PM

__________________________________________________

I bought the movie “Expelled.” I think it is a wonderful movie and an excellent teaching tool. I believe in teaching all sides, or no sides. We learn from the differences. Kids will figure it out for themselves. I don’t want to control the information available, or favor one teaching of certain information that manipulation ideas. The best way to do that and please everybody is compromise and teach all sides. People can believe what they want to believe, but don’t close that door to those kids that want to learn all sides so they can figure out their own truth. I want my kid to learn about evolution, intelligent design and creationism. I think all have parts correct. I believe in all (3) and the only way we learn best is when various information is made available.

The authors of our constitution in 1876, having learned the lessons of reconstruction, wisely limited the powers of the governor. Bill White is partially correct when he discusses what should be. But in fact the governor has nothing to do with curriculum. Most of the “powers” the governor has are powers of persuasion. Perry can point out what the Board of Education has been “charged with” but he didn’t do it. All any of this does is possibly energize the religious voters, and if it helps keep a democrat out of office, it’s a good thing, but really just window dressing.

Millions of Americans believe in Astrology and hexex and have other superstitions, Millions think they have been visited by Aliens. Intelligent design is religion not science. when I attended Catholic School I studied religion. when I attended Public School I did not. That made sense to me, I see no reason to change it.

The fact that people do not want creation-science taught is proof that evolution is not real science. Real science considers all ideas…it does not exclude ideas…it looks at the facts, which they have not done.

Another problem with evolution is that some of the information evolution scientists publish is false, and when it’s found out to be untrue, they do not publish that, therefore, laymen who believe in evolution are privy to this information, and unfortunately left still believing something false.

“Expelled” is an excellent movie! Teaching information doesn’t mean we have to “believe” everything we are taught. WE LEARN BEST FROM THE DIFFERENCES it doesn’t mean we have to embrace the information and make it our own ideals, values, beliefs…..! A well developed, healthy and open mind is the way to go. Teach it all!

Perry has the audacity to claim intellectual capacity while touting “intelligent design.” God, please vote this imbecile out of office before he does any more damage to the education of future generations.

I disagree with White since he’s probably wanting only Liberal “Educators” making these decisions. After seeing that the Liberals on the schoolbook committee wanted Upton Sinclair’s book, “The Jungle,” as one of only 3 selections for a classroom I’m not much interested in anything they have to say on education. That book does an emotionally charged hard-sell of Socialism over Capitalism, and no other book to counter this. It is in no way balanced.

We are talking education here not indoctrination.

Evolution should be presented as ONLY a theory. You realize that this theory is based largely on something that cannot be seen: DARK MATTER. If something fits their theory, their narrative, then they have plugged it in.

To say that “life evolved” is reasonable, but the entire discussion should be presented as only a THEORY.

Perry’s stated opinion is ample evidence that the man is either not to smart or uneducated or just saying that thinking he can gain votes. And then they wonder why Texas students are not keeping up with the rest of the world. One of the most important functions of governor is who he appoints to state agencies. Making a non-scientific people to head education agencies is a terrible thing to do if we are in world competition for leadership and innovation in science and technology.

“I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith” pretty much says it all. Intelligent design is a matter of faith and the only school that should be teaching matters of faith is sunday school. Even then I would recommend choosing a sunday school that is OK with facts such as that evolution occured. I was raised catholic, and that church has all sorts of problems, but at least they have no problem with evolution.

“the examination of all sides of a scientific theory” Raised by Perry is complete B.S. There is only one scientific side to this debate and the examination in science class should be limited to scientific issues.

I think it is ironic when science teaches us that something can not come from nothing. But the “intellectuals” believe that the origins happen by chance. You guys have more faith than I could ever have.

Well I’ve been leaning towards Bill White and this does it. Intelligent design? Are you kidding me? Rick Perry is a troglodyte! Read Darwin’s book for crying in a bucket. It (evolution) made perfectly good and elegant sense then, and even without the benefit of carbon dating technology, Darwin hit it right on the nose. Month after month, year after year, every new scientific finding in the field just hammers home the unquestionable fact that natural selection is how we got here. Intelligent design is a laughably absurd fabrication.

I think the Gov. used some of that intelligent design in the op-ed piece he did for the Washington Post extolling the virtues of the Dallas Cowboys over the Washington Redskins. I hope he doesn’t sally forth to brag on the Texans, a team that has CLEARLY EVOLVED!

There is not one fundamental reason for Perry and his supporters to be taking up space on this planet, as well as using our dwindling oxygen supplies. Yet, at least 40% of Texans, that’s about 7 MILLION, are ardent supporters of this cretin…do you realize how much space on the freeways every morning are taken by these hill-billies. Why, if we could drive them out we wouldn’t need to widen a highway anywhere for 20-30 years!

One cannot equate all Christians with people who don’t believe in evolution. Nor do all Christians believe in “intelligent design.” Many of us do not see conflicts with believing in evolution and being a believer; it’s just that the others make the most noise and try to put down anyone who does not comport to their strict beliefs. Kind of like that moron who wanted to burn Qurans. There’s plenty of nuts for every type of ideology, and one thing that they all have in common is that they just now that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Perry is such a phoney. Ugh. My belief regarding the creation of the universe and mankind is based on the Christian Bible. But, schools should teach the scientific theories only. Students should be taught the scriptures at home and in their church or whatever religious institution they attend. When I was school age, that is how I was taught. From all information, I made my own judgement on what is fact and what is fiction.

So, is anyone going to be persuaded by Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? It seems unlikely to convert anyone who isn’t already convinced. For one thing, as entertainment, Expelled is dull and depressing. Some people don’t need evidence to find their truths; some do. Expelled presents no evidence, it simply makes vague emotional attacks against Darwinism. People who go for that sort of thing already know everything they need to. At the end of the media teleconference about Expelled, Ben Stein said he planned to soldier on in the anti-Darwinian crusade, because “we’re missing something extremely basic in our understanding of the world, and how it got created and I’d like us to return to that.”

People who seek this kind of peace used to go into monasteries. Now in the aughts, they make movies. Fortunately, they don’t make too many as bad as Expelled.

Dan Whipple is a Colorado-based freelancer, writing mostly about science and the environment.

If you look objectively and scientically at either a higher power starting life or life springing from the inorganic dust formed after the big bang, neither of them are plausible. Sorry.

.

No matter home many billions of years you allow lightning to strike the elements created from solar furnaces, you’re not going to get organic matter from inorganic.

.

Therefore, out of both impossiblities, I’m going with ID, because out of the two, it’s the more plausible to me. Yes, I know, it’s not plausible, but the alternative isn’t either. And when you look around, the circumstatial evidence seems to back a higher power.

.

I believe in evoluton. I believe in an earth that is a 4.5 billion years old. I don’t believe in teaching the Bible in public schools. But I do believe that when teaching the origin of life, you need to put something like “It is also believe by many that the origin of life was aided by a higher power.”

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)” – Charles Darwin

This is an idiotic idea. Religion, ANY religion, does NOT belong in the PUBLIC school system. Send your children to Catholic, or any other religious school if you want them to be taught creationism or this laughable intelligent design nonsense. It burns my butt that people feel that this has ANYTHING to do with science.

I’ve had it! As much as I can’t stand Bill White, we simply can’t let a boob like Rick Perry continue to represent us – I would say or to lead us, but he’s not a leader. He’s just a cheerleader. I’ll hold my nose when I cast it, but Bill White has my vote now.

8. The gods take four tries to create the Universe. (Mayan Mesoamerica)

Most all religions and cultures have their creation myths so we should force students to study all of them. A major part of the TAKS tests should be devoted to these myths. Of course, students with a modicum of intelligence might start to question the creation myths that they were taught — but they can be given a failing grade for doing so….

Sigh. Just like in every election, it appears I’m going to have to choose between my fiscal conservative principles on one hand, and my desire for educated & rational thought on the other. Some choice. Why can’t we have a major party that supports both?

JG, you are a fine example of what happens when we let religious fanatics take over our educational system. You were clearly too busy singing hymns to get a proper education. “It’s” is a contraction for “it is,” while “its” is the possessive form of “it.”

You attempt to explain what “real science” is but then fail to cite any sources for your outlandish accusations. In real science, one must cite authoritative sources and submit to peer review. After much discussion and independent testing, facts come to be accepted by consensus rather than by fanaticism.

Many of the world’s great scientists were/are religious. Religion and science are not generally incompatible. Religious fanaticism and real science are, however, incompatible.

I think it is ironic when science teaches us that something can not come from nothing. But the “intellectuals” believe that the origins happen by chance. You guys have more faith than I could ever have.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2010 04:12 PM

——————–

First, please look up irony and use it correctly. Second, science does not teach that life came from nothing. You want to believe in Intelligent Design (which sounds like an Apple slogan), go right ahead. I’m sure Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny hold high places in your pantheon. But keep your ignorance out of the schools I pay for. If you want to teach it in evangelical schools, feel free, right along with assertions that dinosaurs roamed the Earth a few thousand years ago. Or that Rick Perry has more between his ears than cotton wadding. Sheesh. I wish Mencken were still alive to properly eviscerate the pitiable plush toy who serves as Texas governor.

All of us live 99% by faith. Faith IN something. Faith must always have an object. If you believe in evolution, it is NOT scientific fact. You must have faith in Darwin’s teachings or another scientist you have FAITH in. The missing link has never been discovered. This takes evolution out of the realm of empirical science.

On the other hand, intelligent design must also be accepted by faith, because none of us were present when the earth was created.

But which would you rather have?

Chance plus something = earth and man? (evolution)

Or God plus time = creation of man and earth? (Intelligent design)

I can place far more faith IN the latter.

But why are you evolutionists so afraid for intelligent design to be taught in schools? Especially when both must be investigated via faith IN their concepts, and cannot be proven empirically?

Where is your broadminded inclusive attitude you espouse?

Could it be that we intelligent designers are actually more broadminded than you? Interesting, huh?

To give an opportunity for ALL sides of the issue to be examined in public schools, shouldn’t the position of UNINTELLIGENT design also be taught? This is the theory that lots of features in human anatomy clearly demonstrate total incompetence by the designer…. Hundreds of examples of bad design should be taught along with the examples of good design or we are just teaching one side of the issue!

“Evolutionists” want us to believe that life began from the random assembling of simple chemicals, perhaps struck by lightning or heated by a volcano. But thus far, no scientist has ever been able to create simple life thru a similar process. “Creationism” and “intelligent design” are also theories that can’t be proven or documented beyond faith. Seems to me like the only reasonable thing is to present all ideas. Perhaps time spent on this would be better that time spent showing kids how to put a condom on a cucumber.

Oh come on Perry? Even though you suck, you are still a better choice for Governor than Bill White. White ran Houston into the ground. White talks about the trans texas corridor but he took land and caused businesses to shut down over the light rail system. White profited off of Ike and Rita. And White will do to Texas what Obama is doing to America.

Rick Perry is not stupid, but he panders to the religious right at every opportunity. And why not? They elected him. I remember when George Bush was asked during a debate who his favorite philosopher was. His reply? Jesus Christ. Same shit, different shoveler.

It is a simple distinction: how life evolved over hundreds of millions of years is science. The role of a creator or supreme being or beings or even the FSM in creating the earth and all that dwells on it is religion. Geocentrism is religion; solar centric is science. Layers of rock laid down over millions of years by various geologic processes is science. Layers of rock laid down 6000 years ago in a single flood is religion. Electing Perry as governor is a mistake.

So in science class, the students will be taught the mountain range of evidence that support the hypothesis that diversity of life on earth can be explained by Darwinian evolution. They will also be taught an alternative “hypothesis” that the diversity of life can be explained by the “magic” action of some sort of wizard/god, but unfortunately, this is an untestable hypothesis and therefore by definition, is not a scientific hypothesis. Poor kids are going to be awfully confused — just what our economic rivals in China and India would like.

Perry can’t be that stupid…..must be playing to the religious majority….I guess that’s smart…..no known athiest can be elected in the USA….politicians who are athiests must hide the fact…….Imagine a world with no religion and only rational secular humanists…….nah, just a thought…while waiting for Israel to Nuke Iran

Why not teach them both? Isn’t the purpose of school to teach kids to think for themselves? Or wouldn’t that fit the liberal agenda?

Posted by: James at September 13, 2010 05:08 PM

——————

It’s a fair question with a simple answer. One cannot teach Intelligent Design rationally. Its roots are not in science and testable hypothesis but faith. One can still believe in evolution and some greater power, I suppose, believing the greater power put everything into motion, creating some initial spark that chance and nature would work out over the course of many eons. But that is not what evanglicals want, and not what Perry is talking about. You cannot teach Intelligent Deisgn in science class because it flows from the unprovable. Religion class is another matter. I guess one could present as an alternate explanation adhered to by some who choose to ignore or repudiate science. Toward what end I’m not sure.

“Why not teach them both? Isn’t the purpose of school to teach kids to think for themselves? Or wouldn’t that fit the liberal agenda?”

I’ll tell you why not, you idiot!

A, Intelligent design is based on Christian faith. You can not teach religion in public schools! What about that do you not understand?

B, There’s NO scientific merit to intelligent design. If a kid takes a science class that teaches intelligent design… he/she will be at a disadvantage when they enter college, not to mention just in life.

it’s simply not fair to teach a kid BS curriculum. If you are really that afraid of evolution, ship your kid to a private bible school. Yes, he/she may resent you for life, but at least you’ll be able to sleep at night knowing you tried to force them to be Christian.

Faith should be taught in a class about religion, not for religions. You can teach kids about different views.

You almost have to teach cosmology to people in the progression from geocentric to heliocentric models and inevitably will start from what the early people thought vs what was so.

But otherwise, Perry is doing his dog whistle politics again. He is inserting “faith” aka “beliefs” into the mix of the evident world. We no longer subscribe to earth is flat, earth is center of universe, sun is center of universe, etc views. This is State inserting Religion.

Not all “religions” believe in a creator god. It is the view of some (even if majority) of human beings. But it is not something that can be proven. It is always going to be a belief. It should be taught in a class about beliefs not about science.

BannedConservative wrote: you’re not going to get organic matter from inorganic…circumstatial evidence seems to back a higher power. Can anyone give a legitimate reason why that shouldn’t be included?

————————-

It shouldn’t be included in science classes & texts because it isn’t science. It isn’t based upon scientific method (the best fit for existing physical evidence). But rather upon the most charismatic messenger and the most comfortable beliefs.

In Scientific method, nothing is impossible (ruled out from the get-go). But there is physical evidence for various means of biogenesis. Where is the physical evidence of divine intervention (not of the result, but evidence of His means of creation)? What biogenerated this Divine entity? Or was He/She here forever? Why can’t the universe be eternal instead? And our observable universe just one growing bubble in a larger eternal reality.

Scientific evidence: Simple (ie., methane) organics exist throughout the solar system. Complex organics, including amino acids, have been found in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, for example.

Not Liberal Faith is required with evolution,as with ID, and I’ll tell you my problem with evolution. Having raised animals all my life I’ve learned one thing species breed true. A fish produces a fish, a hog produces a hog, and a human produces a human. I am not an idiot, but you sure sound like a liberal.

Jethro David Hightower thanks for your response to my questions. I have another one for you. Evolution teaches that we evolve into higher life forms, however in my experience if you leave a group of animals together with no guidance in the breeding the opposite is true, the animals are stronger at survival, but are an inferior product in almost every other way. Care to explain that?

Everyone knows intelligent design is nothing more than a backdoor to get religion into the classroom.

Does the theory of evolution have all the answers? No. However, the theory of intelligent design merely regurgitates obvious facts. At the same time, anything that can’t be explained using those obvious facts suddenly becomes part of (say it with me now) “God’s Plan,” where explanations are unnecessary and questions are interpreted as hostility towards Christianity.

“If you look objectively and scientically at either a higher power starting life or life springing from the inorganic dust formed after the big bang, neither of them are plausible.”

False construct because one of these two, if not both, are already conditionally refined. Meaning, I can point to immediate exceptions.

1. “Higher power”.

That is a particular religious view but not always the view of all religions. The Creator God theme has been a feature of the most notable religions that subscribe to ‘gods’ or ‘god’. But there are other formation stories that are not as anthropomorphized like that. Or the “creation” was divided among different gods or ‘aspects’ of god. But if you remove the concrete view of those gods and see them as best metaphors for observable phenomena then they are actually pretty accurate and similar in nature to the “evolution” “big bang” group.

Consider that nomadic people in the early days were able to conceive of a void like state with the need to make matter from nothing to something.

Then ask how that is remarkably different from the modern view of big bang, something…from nothing.

2. Life from inorganic dust.

Who said the “dust” was inorganic or why didn’t you mention areas in Earth’s history where the chemical and geothermic reactions were clearly creating carbon in abundance; hardly an inorganic dust bowl as you just supposed. Further, we can still see and track life form progression and geothermic patterns that indicate “evolution” of both life forms, the earth itself, and beyond.

We don’t necessarily see the moon or other “evolve” but we can see the Earth evolve in many ways. We can see lifeforms evolving in front of us without need to interfere. We just have people who still want to keep a wall between the two so that invisible buddy doesn’t get mad.

Enough of the radically insecure religiosity folks who keep trying to drag the school systems back to pre-Copernicus days. Galileo is rolling in his grave. These are the people that should be seen as faithless because they keep having to force the system to validate their arcane views. The irony is that it actually costs tax payers more money to have these ongoing battles with people who want to insert their narrow religious view in the curriculum and these are often the same people who scream about higher taxes.

If you think that intelligent design people are not bright, Sir Isaac Newton was a believer in the Bible account, for example.

Posted by: Raccoon1 at September 13, 2010 05:21 PM

************************

Interesting point, as is the fact that Newton spent considerable time and effort trying to generate gold from other elements — the fundamentals of chemistry and the elements were unknown during his day. Science marches on despite attempts by some to instill “magical” interventions by a wizard/god to explain the observable universe.

We ought to teach our kids how science is really done. If one idea is better than another, it is up to them to destroy each others’ reputation and let the funding decide. If God wants the science funded, then who are we to argue, and God wants creationism funded. Nuff sed!

I know, I know, folks will say that just because creationism is only about trying disprove something that does not fit the faith it isn’t real science. That science does that all the time, too, doesn’t sink in. It’s who wins that counts, and my money is on Perry!

If you read the article in Sunday’s Chronicle about Rusk, Texas you will realize just who Perry is talking to. It’s the older fundamentalist Christians that inhabit these small tows that vote in high numbers. They’re eating this rhetoric up and don’t care what it does to the education system.

Science follows a methodology called the scientific method. Science teachers ought to be allowed to teach science, the scientific method, and all scientific theories, such as gravity and evolution, according to their methodology. Intelligent design does not mesh with the scientific method. Intelligent design relies on faith.

Science teachers ought not to be dragged into religious debates. Families retain ultimate authority over what religion should be taught in their homes.

I find several things alarming in this situation. 1. Religion as doctrine should be kept in homes. I am firmly opposed to doctrine being taught in schools, and all wise Americans ought to be opposed to it also. This should not become a matter of majority rule. Doctrine should never enter a public school curriculum. Religious freedom is for the individual and it is a matter of choice. If you are an atheist, or a believer, or anywhere in between, discuss this at home with your children. Present true explanations of the theory (not hearsay) and valid questions to them about the flaws that people see in the theory. Compare it to your doctrine. Make your own decisions for your home. But do not force your doctrine onto the public school system.

2. Since when are adult Americans afraid to examine other views? Why are the TEA staff ordered to keep silent? Seriously, in the United States of America people are being told to keep their mouths shut? Does this not bother all of you?

3. People need to understand that politics do determine curriculum. This is a most unfortunate reality since at least the 1980′s with the initial institution of high stakes testing. The governor has some power over these decisions, whether you realize the chain of command here or not. Voting on curriculum has been highly politicized in TEA. I would like to see education removed from the politicians’ domain since they have been hijacking the needs of our children in order to get elected. Our children’s future should not be manipulated for votes. It is too important. I will vote for the candidate least likely to interfere in our children’s education. No other single issue is as important as this one.

point of order for the science deniers among us: The Big Bang Theory* is not part of evolutionary biology.

You’re trying to lump a vast collection of scientific laws, which you clearly don’t understand, into a single bumper-sticker-sized concept that equates in some sort of simplistic apples-to-apples comparison to your creation myth. Science doesn’t work that way. Furthermore, if there is no way to test an idea, or evidence to support it, then that idea doesn’t belong in a science class.

*In the language of science, Theory = Law. Or more specifically, a collection of tested, observed, and accepted systems which form a basis of understanding with which to make further observations about the world around us.

If it’s a choice between a book written 2000 years ago by a compilation of people whose explanation cannot be tested, or science developed over the past 2000 by people whose ideas are subject to review and experimentation, I’ll take the latter. Our knowledge increases every generation (well, for some of us); to deny that knowledge is to deny what makes us human.

“Intelligent Design” is one of the most miserable pieces of defeatist proganda ever foist upon our nation. To beleive that some thnig, in this case lifre, the UNiverse, what have you, must have been designed and thus created by some higher intelligence is to believe there is a finite limit on what we, mankind, are able to comprehend. I absolutely reject that concept.If you accept it, then how about natural laws of physics? too complex? High shool students would love to have that as an out on a test.Chemistry? Politics? Philosophy? There is no end to how little you can attribute to man if you start off with a foundation admitting defeat before you’re out of the blocks.

Perhaps Rick Perry would like to teach history, too? He can come up with all kinds of creative theories about the origin of this country. I think he’s in the wrong business. He should be a fiction writer.

I agree. We ought to teach all sides of intelligent design “theory” in science classrooms.

Kids ought to learn how its roots lie in young earth creationism. That it was adapted not based on scientific merit, but to give it the illusion of being something presentable in classrooms.

Kids ought to learn about how falsifiability is a key criterion of legitimate science and how intelligent design fails to be falsifiable. They should learn the importance of peer review, and be posed the question, why might it be that intelligent design advocates never publish in peer-reviewed journals?

Kids ought to learn about elegance in scientific theories: the ability of a theory to explain a wide variety of phenomena, and open up new fields of exploration, based on a few central ideas. They should be able to compare and contrast evolution, which has led to new ideas and applications in many areas, and intelligent design, which has led to… nothing.

And kids ought to learn how, when the best and brightest “scholars” intelligent design has to offer were called upon to defend ID as science in a Pennsylvania courtroom, not only did they completely fail to do so, but worse yet – they lied. And they got caught.

All of us live 99% by faith. Faith IN something. Faith must always have an object. If you believe in evolution, it is NOT scientific fact. You must have faith in Darwin’s teachings or another scientist you have FAITH in. The missing link has never been discovered. This takes evolution out of the realm of empirical science.

On the other hand, intelligent design must also be accepted by faith, because none of us were present when the earth was created.

But which would you rather have?

Chance plus something = earth and man? (evolution)

Or God plus time = creation of man and earth? (Intelligent design)

I can place far more faith IN the latter.

But why are you evolutionists so afraid for intelligent design to be taught in schools? Especially when both must be investigated via faith IN their concepts, and cannot be proven empirically?

Where is your broadminded inclusive attitude you espouse?

Could it be that we intelligent designers are actually more broadminded than you? Interesting, huh?

.++++

I like the way you presented our side of the question, Terry. I would only add one question for the oh so cocksure Pure Evolutionists. Say we did evolve from apes. Comparative to the Ape, we see the Shark who has not evolved in all the years of its existence – as sharks are simple sea going eating machines. No evolution necessary. Now -if the apes were not perfect, or in need of evolution, thus inviting evolution, WHY are there still apes?

Origins of species aside, we would be well-served to develop some scientific means of determining if an organism has been produced by intelligent design. We’re fast approaching a time when any new species we discover might possibly be some genetically-engineered organism escaped from a lab. Intelligent design theory doesn’t have to be all about faith or religion.

Perry is on the take and everybody knows it. Want a bill passed? Pay him more than the other guy and you got it. The only problem is that there is no other guy. It’s always the huge corps and nobody can match them. I wish the cayote had killed him for food.

Quit asking why we are “AFRAID” of intelligent design being taught in schools and why we are opposed to differing ides being taught. This argument is as moronic as asking me why I would be “afraid” of teaching a geocentric universe theory or opposed to the same. I don’t want it taught not because I’m scared, I don’t want it taught because it’s just not true. Classroom time is at a premium and the time in science needs to be spent learning science. Take your kid to church on Sunday if you want them to learn religion.

“To say that “life evolved” is reasonable, but the entire discussion should be presented as only a THEORY.”

You clearly do not know anything about science. A scientific theory is not just “one explanation.” It has been tested, experimented with, and stood up to all other explanations. Gravity is also “only a THEORY.”

Presenting intelligent design alongside evolution is a terrible idea. High school science classes can’t get deep enough into the science supporting evolution to help the students formulate an understanding of it that will help them distinguish between it and false “theories” like intelligent design. ID is a philosophical assertion; it has no science to back it up, and will never have any science to back it up. Religious people need to think about some things here. They worship a Creator God that is above and beyond human understanding and immeasurable by the standards of scientific inquiry. If you begin to posit “theories” based on God, you are eventually going to paint yourself into a corner when you realize you don’t have any data to back it up. What data could you possibly have on God?

Evolution is not a threat to anybody’s faith. The only threat it represents are to people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. But those people are fools anyway, and I don’t think any of us, certainly not the SBOE, should waste our time trying to appeal to them. Evolution makes no statement about God, makes no claims about the philosophical paradox of origins (everything comes from something, etc), and furthermore, evolution represents the foundation of the biological sciences. To reject evolution, as National Geographic once put it, is to reject the entire enterprise of science. ID needs to stay where it belongs: in church.

As usual – The Republican answers the question and the Democrat does not. Yes, Perry’s answer was stupid but you know exactly where he stands. You will never know with White and that bothers me more. Democrats can never say what they believe in because if they did they couldn’t get elected.

I don’t care who is the smartest. I care wheather their policies will make us stronger or weaker. Perry wins that battle.

We the people can fight that whole stupid religion in school thing on our own.

Here are the words of Francis Collins, NIH Director and devout Christian, regarding irreducible complexity (IR), which is the most serious attept to give a scientific underpinning to inteligent design:

“….it now seems likely that many examples of irreducible complexity are not irreducible after all, and that the primary scientific argument for ID is thus in the process of crumbling, In the short 15 years since ID appeared on the scene, science has made substantial advances, particularly in the detailed study of the genomes of multiple organisms from multiple parts of the evolutionary tree. Major cracks are beginning to appear, suggesting that ID proponents have made the mistake of confusing the unknown with the unknowable or the unsolved with the unsolvable.”

All you people who are posting in favor of Perry are demonstrating the scientific illiteracy that is sadly too prevalent in this country. You can’t distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical argument, faith and reason, or even biology and astrophysics. Without intending to, you make some of the best arguments AGAINST Perry’s postition.

Want ID? Then teach it in philosophy class where it belongs. Something with zero scientific underpinning has no place in a science class.

A while back there was a movie called “Expelled” with Ben Stein that addressed the issue of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. The movie was well done and interesting for a documentary.

*************

Expelled was a classic “trap and trick” documentary. Several of the people in the film were told that they were being interviewed for a film about how Darwin’s ideas have helped religion. They have also complained that their comments were edited and taken out of context. In short, it is the film Michael Moore would have made if he had been a Mormon.

As for evolution, you should start your discussion by reading through the talk.origins FAQ. Most of the common misconceptions (“There have been no examples of macro evolution”, “evolution proceeds by chance alone”, “evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics”, “Darwin converted on his deathbed”, etc.) are covered there.

White: Educators and local school officials, not the governor, should determine science curriculum.

====

Short, sweet — and even more scary than Perry’s answer. What I read into this is, in Houston, science classes might teach the theory of evolution, and leave intelligent design to the churches where it belongs.

In Splendora, where the local school officials are all (supposition on my part) deacons of the local Baptist church — intelligent design is taught in science class, and evolution is tossed out the window.

When I was in school, evolution was taught as a scientific THEORY, not as fact. No one knows for sure how life evolves, but we know that it does, otherwise, all humans would still be 5 feet tall.

When will these religious fanatics realize that the more they try to force their beliefs on others, the more ridiculous they appear?

If I have a child in science class, I want them taught SCIENCE! If I have a child that I want to learn religion, I will take them to church. Why can’t people allow for religion to have it’s place, and not need religion to invade every part of life? Do we live in the Middle East? Will we soon have people walking the streets with sticks, beating women for not covering their faces, and men for not having long enough beards?

Liberals say they are open minded, as long as you do not go against what they think. Perry stated his opinion, which in a free society, is ok. White is a remake of Obama and will stay nuetral during election time. As a Christian, we should voice our opinion. Jesus is the only way. Any matter or fossils that are studied were made by Jesus. The mind you have (And free will) to go against everything Jesus stands for was made by Jesus. If anyone that states himself as being a Christian and does not stand up for Christian beliefs is diluting what the bible says about being a disciple of His. The political correct stance is why the United States is being ran by the minority of non-believers.

Why cant we just hear both sides in science class? the side backed up by scientific research and the other one, backed up by wishful thinking? I mean, I just dont understand all of these scientific types wanting to push their ‘agenda’ upon us. all of this nonsense based on tens of millions of hours of research is really not that impressive. the bible tells me that the earth was created in 7 days, and preacher bob has backed this all up in sunday school. so why cant all of these ‘intellectuals’ accept it as i have?

if one of them wanted to present a theory on how to better castrate one of our bulls, I would be glad to listen. if one of them wanted to show me a better way of shooting deer or coyotes, I would be all ears. if one of them could tell me why its a bad thing to reproduce with my cousins, i’d sit down to listen.

so what is so unreasonable about being inclusive here? why cant we include the bible in science class?

They tell me, a person who believes in evolution, that I am wrong, because my science can’t prove evolution.

Yet they tell me that they are right in believing intelligent design, and when I ask for proof, they tell me, “you just have to have faith.”

They can’t prove intelligent design, they can’t prove their god exists, but they want me to prove evolution.

There is abundant proof that evolution occurs. The fact that the ‘missing link’ has never been found is not a valid denouncement of evolution. Not all knowledge is available at one time, some takes years, decades, or even centuries to come to us.

If there was no evolution, all species would be just as they were millenia ago. Evolution is a process of change necessitated by environment, or allowed by circumstances. Mankind has evolved, because they took control of their environment. Sharks haven’t evolved much, because they were already perfectly suited to their role in this world (although they have gotten smaller, as their prey has gotten smaller, and this in itself is evolution).

Oh, and the bible used by the ID folks — not proof. I’m sorry, but I want something a little more recent than 2000 years ago, perhaps some solid physical evidence, not just the writings of a group of men who were just searching around for explanations.

Let me get this straight. The earth (by itself) produced slime that became fish. The fish grew legs and lungs and walked out of the ocean. The fish with legs and lungs started growing hair and eventually became a monkey. The monkey changed over time and became a man. This same process of walking fish not only produced man but every living creature? I guess all of you super intelligent evolutionists need to explain this to us regular folk better. We is too dumb to get it.

Creationism is not science, it is religion, no matter what it is renamed as; renaming it is bearing false witness, a violation of the eighth commandment with the rabidly religious claim should not be broken. It no more belongs in school science classes than blood letting does in hospitals as a “cure” for diseases. If people want religion, they can go to church, not force their ignorance on those who want a proper education.

If the uneducated like Perry were confident in their religious beliefs, they wouldn’t need to impose religion in schools, it would stand up on its own and would successfully withstand peer review by impartial scientific boards.

White is no better with his wishy-washy answer. Science is not an “anti-gods” argument, it is the inevitable conclusions based upon facts. Those who want creationism and use the benefits of science are hypocrites.